Monthly Archives: January 2006

Knowledge and knowing in library and information science

Posted on by

This post was started and mostly written on 9 Dec 05.  It could probably stand updating with some more recent links but I’ll let it stand for now.

I have finally started reading the following book as I won’t be able to renew it much longer:

John M. Budd, Knowledge and knowing in library and information science: a philosophical framework.  Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2001.

I
read the intro and the beginning of the 1st chapter and decided I
needed to buy it if affordable. Amazon has it for $35.42 brand-new, but
the cheapest copy on abebooks.com is $24 and it’s at my Mimesis group member’s book store, Babbitt’s Books in Normal, IL.  So, of course, I did the right thing and ordered it from Brian.  Now I’ll be able to converse with the author as I’ll be able to write/mark in it as I see fit, or annotate it if you prefer a technical term.

I am really looking forward to experiencing this book.  I think Budd is going lots of places I approve of in his analysis.  While I may not, and will not I am sure, agree in every detail I think we’ll be close enough to call it a kinship.  The real fun will have to wait until I have my own copy.  But for now, I’ll pass on what will be my opening 2nd entry into the Library 2.0 discussion, to use a word loosely, albeit hopefully.

The thinking that guides work in every profession and discipline, including library and information science (LIS), has a heritage, a genealogy. There may be aspects of the heritage of thought that some fields share; there may be some unique elements in each. The thought on which today’s action is based, or of which it is a product, is a long line of conjectures, suggestions, evidence, refutation, and revision. Much of that heritage is hidden to those who practice in these fields, unless they purposely inquire into the past. It may be argued that practice proceeds and progresses just fine in ignorance of the heritage. I’d suggest that such a view mistakenly interprets continued action as progress. Genuine progress—which I’ll define here as the development and offering of effective service to communities, fruitful enquiry into enduring questions that helps us understand the complexity of our world, and making decisions that are really informed (in the sense that fully allows for the most useful internal workings and external effect)—only occurs when there has been deep critical investigation into the workings of our field. Critical investigation, of necessity, relies on knowing where we came from and how we got here, as well as where we’re going (Budd 1-2).

My acknowledgment of the productive tension that has both led us to this place and time and provided us with a path to the future owes a great deal to Stephen Jay Gould’s observation that the study of thought necessarily embodies all thought; we do ourselves a disservice when we create disciplinary barriers that can become increasingly difficult to cross. He says we have made serious mistakes that result in a distrust of difference:

The first bad habit—setting up dichotomies—may be deeply inbred into the mechanisms of cerebral divisions—good vs. evil, male vs. female, or culture vs. nature—and then, in a further unfortunate reflex, to rank or judge these alternatives. The second bad habit, making martial metaphors, represents an all-too-human potential for belligerence—a potential unfortunately realized in most cultural contexts. When we put these two themes together, we fall into simplistic readings of history as a set of battles between Light and Darkness. (Gould, 1998, 86) (Budd, 12).

Gould really nails the issue here.  Humans don’t just put things in boxes (categorize), we seem to prefer only 2 boxes for each dimension.  But there is almost always more than 2 categories, and there are very, very few real dichotomies.  The list of martial metaphors, especially when it comes to metaphors of communication, is incredibly long [See Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By].

Budd is entirely correct in his comments here.  He is not just saying you need to know your history and how we got "here" but that you need to know it so that you can examine what it is you do and why you do it so that you can then make real progress.  It is a statement of some of the background that a profession/discipline needs to lead an examined life.

One of the better voices that I’ve seen so far in this discussion, in that he’s trying to make it a discussion, has been Michael Casey’s at LibraryCrunch.  While I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, he is trying to make this a discussion and to help us understand and remember that we are all starting from different points. 

But I do have a comment to a statement by Michael at his post, "Whatever tools take us there are the ones we will use."  It is a well-balanced post that attempts to get people to reduce the focus on technology and reminds us that libraries may have different missions while we attempt to reach the goal of Library 2.0 as he defines it: "Crafting better and better services, giving customers more and more control over library offerings, and reaching a greater and greater proportion of the population…."

He talks about how the goal will be reached via high tech tools where appropriate and by other tools also.  I could not agree more.  He ends with this:

Whatever tools take us there are the ones we will use.  Many of those tools will come from the world of Web 2.0, and many of the tools we use will have nothing to do with technology, but will instead be ways of thinking and philosophical approaches to librarianship.

This is my only gripe—ways of thinking and, in fact, philosophical approaches are technologies.  While they may not be high tech, or even the common conception of ‘technology’ there is no doubt that they are most certainly technologies.  A little work in the history, philosophy, and sociology of technology should easily convince one of this.  But just as most scientists get no explicit philosophy of science, most technophiles (and this is not directed at Michael Casey!) do not study technology.  This is another reason there is such discord between many of the ‘camps,’ to use a martial metaphor.  We do not agree on the use of our terms.  And until we do so there can be very little fruitful discussion.

Another post by Michael is "A Dialogue on L2: The services change, the mission does not."  This is another good post and attempt at starting the conversation, and it ties in beautifully with the Budd book.  Michael writes:

One thing you mention that goes through my mind a lot is, "what is a library?"  I’m not sure we know anymore, and I fear one of the things we’re going to see is increasingly diverse interpretations of what a library really is.  There is no way to begin including some of the things that have been discussed as being L2 without thinking that libraries may soon begin deviating from each other’s understanding of library.

Based on my limited historical understanding, that is the question.  And it can not be answered until we do much of the work that Budd talks about in the first excerpted paragraph above.  Go read this post by Michael though, and be sure to read the comments.  I particularly enjoyed the one by T. Scott.  He says, "But I’m concentrating on developing better librarians — if we do that,
better libraries will happen naturally. If our gaze is focused on the
library, I think we’re turned in the wrong direction."  Yes!  Libraries, as I’ve said many places and will continue to do so, do nothing.  People, in this case librarians and other library staff, do the doing.  It is simply a category mistake to apply agency to an institution.  I know it is how we talk.  It is also how much of the evil is done in the world.

One more comment though on Michael’s post.  You can’t say the mission doesn’t change until you’ve done the above work.  Maybe it is the mission, or part of it, that needs to change, not just services.  And if the services change in a service-oriented profession, has not the mission changed, at least on some level?  And in the first post I mentioned by Michael, he claims that "every library has a slightly different mission" and then he tells us the mission doesn’t change.  Huh?

Now these are all minor criticisms in my mind, and I sincerely applaud Michael Casey for attempting to further the discussion of where we are, where we might need to be, and the various ways to get there.

I followed T. Scott’s comment to his blog and found this post, "Librarian 5.0," which starts out:

I’d like to see just a little more imagination and a bit more historical perspective on the part of the Library 2.0 enthusiasts. Certainly, making good use of the latest tools & gadgets & gizmos to do a better job of reaching out to our communities and providing better services is something we should all be doing — but this isn’t really anything new.

Check out the whole thing and the comments.  Excellent stuff. 

Meredith at Information Wants To Be Free wants "A clear vision for the future of your library."

Maybe it would make sense to ask the miracle question in our libraries.
If a miracle occured one night and all of the problems with your
library were gone (or we miraculously reached library 2.0 overnight),
how would you know that a miracle had occurred? What would be
different? What would the library be like? Once you have that vision
for what your library/Library 2.0 should look like, what specific steps
do you and your colleagues need to take to get there (how do you get to
1.3, 1.6, etc.)? Once you have your answer to those questions, you
should have a clear roadmap for reaching your goal. And it’s a roadmap
written specifically for your library.

Meredith has some very good points in this post.  She also has some in a much newer post, "Label 2.0." 

I do take (small) issue with some of her comments in both posts, which I hope to address soon.  I know she doesn’t intend them the way they sound to me, but nonetheless some of her comments sound exclusionary, and that doesn’t sound like the Meredith I’ve come to know.

Link to "My 1st L2 comments" posted on 4 Jan 06.

Gould, Stephen Jay.  1998.  In Gratuitous Battle.  Civilization (October/November): 86-88.

ALA TechSource blog – Is it just me?

Posted on by

ALA TechSource Blog.

I gotta ask.  Is it just my Bloglines account or are other people having issues with their feed?  Ever since it started, I get multiple copies of every post (usually 3).  Even after post’s have been marked as read, they usually come back.  I realize that a post may be reappearing because it has had a comment, but I do not need multiple copies!

I have always attributed it to ALA’s complete lack of tech know-how, but maybe it is something else.  Thus, I ask any of you who also have it in your aggregator if you have this issue too.

There is some good writing going on there, but it is not worth the hassle of weeding through multiple copies of the same thing, especially once I’ve already consumed it. 

This is the feed I’m using:  http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/index.rss

Anyone else having issues?  If so, I will bring it to their attention.  Otherwise, I’m banishing them.  I always need to get rid of a feed or two.  Those that "spam" me are under prime consideration.

I was going to go ahead and give a heads up to them but their doesn’t seem to be (as in I can’t find it with a medium amount of effort — and no, I’m not going to call ALA) an easy way to provide feedback other than to comment on a specific post.  So I’ll wait for feedback from you all before I exoend more effort to contact ALA TechSource.

My 1st L2 comments

Posted on by

I have some draft posts I have been working on re Library 2.0, L2 or whatever you prefer to call it.  I’m not really happy with any of them so far, and since I haven’t really been motivated for what unknown reasons to write anything serious since semester break started, they are languishing.

I was tempted by Walt Crawford’s request, but only momentarily, especially since I don’t do word limits well.  He did, of course, suggest I put it here and he’d use what he liked if I pointed it out (and he liked it), but see the 1st paragraph above.  Thanks for the offer Walt, but I can’t explain my laziness to myself even.

Anyway, I think I just made my 1st foray on the topic.  I may have left comments elsewhere on an L2 post, but I don’t remember.  If I did, it was probably on a specific narrow point.

LibrarianInBlack (Sarah Houghton) has a post up entitled, "Library 2.0: New or No?"  The post is a response to Stephen Cohen’s (Library Stuff) "Library 2.0 – Questions and Commentary."

I added a comment to Sarah’s post which is a very succinct commentary on my views (so far) on Library 2.0.  Here it is in it’s entirety, although I highly suggest you read Stephen, Sarah, and Michael’s (see below) posts, a) because they are good, and b) for context:

Were not bookmobiles, phone and email reference…a great leap forward for the profession?  Was not the catalog card or even library hand for that matter?  Our technologies will continue to evolve and they will change how we do things, as they always have.  The main relevant question is "Why we do things?"  Subsequent to that being answered come the questions of "How?"  And that is what I see as mostly lacking in much of the current discussions.  The "Why?"

I do agree that this may be a (recurrent) wakeup call for many within the profession, but I don’t see much new either, with one exception.  Michael Casey quoted Dana from 1896 but he could have as
easily went to 1876, and earlier with a tad bit more difficulty.

The one main new thing I see is the ease of feedback to the field, and/or discussion *despite* the field, that goes on now.

Here’s the link to Michael Casey’s LibraryCrunch post where he cites Dana.  Excellent commentary, as usual, at LibraryCrunch.

One of my main complaints about this whole Library 2.0 meme, as you’ll see if I can get over my current reluctance to do much of substance, is the almost complete ahistoricity of much of its most proponents, and particularly the most ardent.  Thus, I was completely enamored of Michael Casey for quoting Dana from 1896.

Again, if I can get over my lack of whatever before the semester starts back up full swing, you’ll see that I have been trying to engage with Michael Casey’s ideas over at LibraryCrunch.  He’s certainly one to keep an eye on.

Trackbcks update n

Posted on by

Seems TypePad managed to "fix" the trackback issue sometime lately.  I wrote them back yesterday as I hadn’t heard from them in a while and they let me know.  Keep in mind that I tried to send myself some yesterday morning and they hadn’t worked.  Anyway, I tried it again on the morning post and with 3 resaves the 2 trackbacks were sent.

They asked me for a list of what was still unsent, especially to non-TypePad blogs.  I told them I’d try to resend everything and let them know in a few days.  About an hour later after going through them all again and retrying most several times a few had finally gone, but only to TypePad blogs.  So I provided them a complete list:

  • Censored Banned Books Post  3 Oct  pantiespantiespantie
    Carnival of the Infosciences #9  3 Oct  pomerantz
    Info Work at the Boundaries  3 Sep  i’d rather be a mermaid
    Articles I’ve Been Reading  24 Jul  theshiftedlibrarian
    Took the iPod Plunge  24 Mar  tametheweb.com
    Was that a conversation Mr. Gorman?  5 Mar  theshiftedlibrarian

I told them I wasn’t really worried about these anymore.  Kind of late to the party at this point.  But what was worrying me was that although my account was NOT registering trackbacks as sent, they were occasionally going anyway.  This meant that as I sat and resaved over and over to force them to go I was quite possibly sending another one to the same post.  I got 2 myself that way, and when I went and checked Library Dust and 3 Quarks Daily (both TypePad blogs) I had managed to send 2 to 3QD last night and 2 to Michael with one almost 2 weeks ago and one last night even though they never registered as going until last night!

That, I told TypePad help, is an even bigger issue right now as far as I’m concerned.  I do not want to be "spamming" people with trackbacks!  And to Michael and 3QD I apologize.  And anyone else that may have gotten a weeks or months old trackback from me last night I also apologize.  I did try to send them at the time I wrote the post.  As you can see I was having this problem for months before I realized it and before it became completely impossible to send any trackbacks, even to myself.

Oh, and some of those posts reposted too.  So sorry for that if you got old stuff in your aggregator.  I have not updated any posts recently.

Hopefully someone on a non-TypePad blog that has trackbacks will say something intriguing so that I can respond and try sending one to a non-TypePad blog soon.

Also, this morning I added a favicon which Typepad now supports quite easily.  I just used a picture of some flowers that I took in Switzerland in the mid-80s and ran it through FavIcon from Pics and uploaded it.  Ultra-simple.  That is the kind of service I like to see.

Big Music has lost its mind

Posted on by

I first saw this this morning at Sivacracy:  BOYCOTT AND GIRLCOTT COLDPLAY!

My initial thought was I’m glad I don’t listen to Coldplay, but then thought, but which misguided label is this?

Here’s more from later in the day:  IT’S NOT JUST COLDPLAY (also from Sivacracy.net)

Be sure to check out those links Ann provides.  The rocknerd link is an article that discusses testing various of these CDs for playability in various CD and CD-like players and thr ripping of them from various players.   The Hot Buttered Death link is to a long list of discs that are copy protected in this manner.

Now take a minute to notice in that 1st link I provided to Sivacracy (which points to the BoingBoing post Ann got it from) some of those rules.  You have been denied the use of a product that you’ve bought in many of the devices which are designed to play products of this sort.  The notice is internal so you cannot know before you purchase it.  And the kicker is that the labels say "Too Bad."  The only reason they’ll take them back is for a "manufacturing defect."  I guess it will depend on who’s defining "manufacturing defect," but it certainly qualifies in my book!

Take a close look at that long list of titles.  Many are re-issues, e.g. Syd Barrett, The Madcap Laughs / Barrett, or for those less into drug-induced madness, Norah Jones, Come Away With Me. 

I have at least 3 CDs on that list: 

  • Ben Harper, Diamonds on the Inside
  • Emmylou Harris, Stumble Into Grace
  • Van Morrison, What’s Wrong With This Picture

I bought them all a fair while ago and they all have a legitimate Compact Disc Digital Audio emblem on them, so I think they’re OK, but I’ll be checking them in my assorted drives soon.  For whatever reason, these have only been played on the main stereo CD player.

I actually have a few other discs on that list (both Norah Jones…) that I got long before this madness.

When will this madness end?  I will not buy these discs!  If I mistakenly do and the retailer won’t take back these defective discs then I will ensure that I make it clear that I will never purchase another product from them.  Best Buy, I sure hope you’re listening.  You get an awful lot of my money each year, especially for movies and computer products.  I can easily go to Circuit City or shop online for anything I buy from you.  Maybe if we put enough pressure on the retailers about these defective products they will have no choice but to either stop carrying them or at least ensure that they are so heavily marked/segregated from the normal CDs that only complete and utter idiots will buy them.

There is more than enough good music being put out every day on Red Book-standard CDs.  The only trouble is finding it, but that is a small inconvenience.

Only you are responsible for your own soul and conscience, but at least try and support your local artists.  Go to live shows at coffee houses, clubs, bars, wherever and buy their CDs.  Order direct from small and/or independent labels.  Make a decision to start the new year off right.  Otherwise.  "Welcome to the future."  And a very bleak one it’ll be indeed!

What if I had been born a girl?

Posted on by

I have decided to post a short essay I wrote for Gina’s Cross-cultural
Perspectives on Women, Sex and Gender Roles class that I audited.  I didn’t
have to do it since I wasn’t taking the class for a grade, but I
decided it sounded a bit like fun.  Gina and my friend Natasha who was
also in the class are the only ones who have read it so far. 

Gina
encouraged me to "publish" my views on gender and the male mind a long
time ago, but I demurred to say the least.  I’ve said a fair amount
about gender here lately though and I think maybe the essay is harmless
enough.  It’ll be a cold day in hell though before I release the paper I wrote
for a philsophy class around the same time that I also let Gina read.
Gina and the professor are the only ones who have ever read it, and I
hope it’ll stay that way even though Gina highly encouraged me to try
and get it published.  It is a gutting of evolutionary psychology for
my seminar on the status of the gene.  This is how it begins:

    This is the story of how one divorced, 43-year old male of poor (actually, no) genes with low resources survives psychologically on a large, Midwestern undergraduate campus.  Yes, this story begins and ends on an individual psychological note and is primarily based on introspective data.  This is not how science is done.  Introspection has been discredited almost everywhere within science.  Evolution and natural selection do not focus on the individual.  And, evolutionary psychology does not purport to give individual psychological explanations.  So, why am I telling this story?  Because, it provides me with an interest in evolutionary psychology, and allows me to possibly modify my cognitive beliefs based on the best available evidence.  My story may show that belief in the various postulated mental modules is not justified.  In the end, what cognitive beliefs I hold that actually help me to psychologically survive are what matters to me.  But by looking at the story through my eyes, and my mind, we will be able to look at the gene – human behavior connection, at evolutionary psychology and its adaptationist methods, at the massive modularity thesis, and at other hypotheses along the way.  We will look at various philosophy of science issues that arise due to basic assumptions made, and methodologies used, and we will look at evidential concerns arising from the evidence used to support various theories.

No, you do not get to know what the specific psychological issue was/is.  I fully agree with Gina that this kind of discussion needs to be addressed on a much larger scale.  But it is not done so in our society; and I do not have any desire to be the martyr.

It was written about the time I was working seriously on Putting Myself Into My Writing, and this piece may be the epitome of such work for me, at least in one sense.

Anyway, on to the more fluff piece I wrote for Gina.  I do not have the exact assignment at hand, but it was the first one, assigned the first day, of the gender class and was something along the lines of 1-2 pages on how your life would be different if you had been born the opposite sex.  And, yes, "the opposite sex" could be used as they had yet to be exposed to the difference between sex and gender, much less the idea of "The Five Sexes" or of multiple gender expressions. ("The Five Sexes, Revisited"  There is an earlier article entitled "The Five Sexes" also.)

How I Would Be Different If I Had Been Born A Girl:

My life would have been vastly different had I been born a girl.  According to my mother, my name would have been Catherine.  I imagine that my last name would also be different, as I expect that I would have been married by now, and I come from the generation for which retention of her last name by a woman upon marrying was not a common occurrence.  I almost certainly would not have an ex-wife, although possibly an ex-husband, or two.  And while I might have two children, of the age and gender that they are, they would certainly not be the people that they are today.

I am not sure what tack I would have taken upon graduating from high school, but it is almost certain that I would not have entered the Army and then served for over twenty years.  Maybe I would have attended college at the ‘normal’ time, found a nice boy, and settled down as a home maker. 

I would like to believe that my sexual experience would be vastly different.  It could be that I am wrong, but I imagine that it would be greater than it is. 

I would probably have a better sense of fashion having been forced to pay attention to it by my society.

In some sense, I would probably have more power than I do, if only because I would understand the art and use of manipulation better.

And although our society sends mixed signals to both males and females as to their proper roles, manner of behavior, rules for success, and so on, I imagine that I would be a little better adjusted to the culture in which I now find myself.  On the other hand, radical rejection of much of what would have been fed to me might have left me even more maladjusted than I am.

I have no idea what sort of career, if any, that I would have pursued.  I would quite possibly be stuck at home playing ‘soccer mom,’ shuffling the kids from one practice to another, from the doctor to the movies.  And while I would probably dislike them just as much, I would do far more cooking and cleaning than I do now.

There is one thing about me that I know would still be true even if I had been born a girl.  I would still love the music of, and feel the messages contained within the songs and stories of, Ani DiFranco.

[Please do not take any of these comments to heart and label me as sexist or worse.  These comments are either light hearted where I have little information to work with (ex-husbands), or are saying far more than they seem to claim where I actually have a belief or theory that I currently hold (sex and manipulation).  For example, I do not believe that all women are manipulative.  It is more of a psychological claim as to how I would be different, but it is based on a theory that I have about various types of power and their uses.]

That caveat was written for Gina as it was the 1st class I had taken with her and we had yet to have the many discussions we have since on these and related topics.  We know each other a whole lot better and I now know that I can trust her with anything I tell her.  I also now feel comfortable telling her these things, or at least as comfortabble as I can telling anyone.

But now that I’ve "published" this little fun exercise the caveat goes for anyone reading this.  There is a whole lot of shorthand in those few paragraphs.  Single words contain massive amounts of data, data which you are not likely to be know.  I have and do discuss some of this with a few people once I’ve gotten to know them, but usually at a very shallow depth.  Again, any statement that you might think is sexist, or any other -ist for that maatter, is at best a reflection of my own thoughts on how I would be based on a whole lot of personal info and (tentative) beliefs to which you’ll never be privy to.  They are not meant to be sexist or indicative of any gender broadly, only of how I thought, at that point in time, I might be if of the opposite sex.

If you are still judgemental, then I might suggest that you try this little exercise yourself.  Do it as honestly as you can without a lot of analysis.  Then go back and see how sexist, gender-biased, ageist or whatever yours is.  I can pretty much guarantee that there’ll be something to be criticized about your "views."

I’m about 54 pages in to The Riddle of Gender: Science, Activism, and Transgender Rights by Deborah Rudacille and so far it is excellent.  One exception to that excellent—it uses Notes like much of popular science writing where they are at the end of the book (or chapter) and they use a bit of a quote as the locator and then give the reference or the explication.  But, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever within the text that there are notes for something.  I understand it from the research that shows that typical readers are completely turned off by any sort of academic apparatus, but I think it is completely freakin’ stupid!  If you are going to give me no indication at all within the text that there is explicative matter, then don’t bother to explicate.  Just give me a list at the end of sources I might want to also look at.  Either write for a popular audience or an academic one, or please try to bridge the divide, but do not do it by dismantling the useful apparatus. <grrr>

Anyway, do you feel any better now about picturing me in a "Real Men Read" t-shirt and pink tiara?

There is no question that I am a straight male.  But I question much of the cultural construction of both sex and gender,  I am much happier around women than men, I will admit to having been attracted to a dozen or so men in my life (in a simple sort of attraction way), I find the non-typically male or female to be highly interesting, and what we as a society do to those who don’t fit within our highly narrow conceptions of male- and femaleness to be criminal and inhumane.  Thus, on occasion I love to mess with others’ conceptions of gender by doing something silly like propogating the message "Real Men Read" while wearing a pink tiara.  You should try it sometime (in a safe environment).  It is good for you and even more so for society.

New Years Eve

Posted on by

As I said, I went to Danville for New Years Eva.  Had a great time.  Met lots of interesting people.  Got lots of hugs.  Possibly found a little hope amongst the terror.  (On that note I’ll be quiet for now as a boy should be discreet once in a while.)

I actually shaved and wore real slacks.  I wore my Gorey "Real Men Read" t-shirt that I got at ACRL in April.  (That is the company I got it from too.)  By the end of the evening I was also wearing a pink with silver glitter "Happy New Years" tiara.  I got lots of compliments from the ladies, especially after they noticed the interesting juxtaposition. 

Eva and the band played two rocking sets, one before midnight and one after.  There were about 5 new songs, including 2 (I think) new original songs.

Luckily I didn’t drink too much.  I had 3 beers, a glass of white wine and a glass of champagne and a fair amount of water.

Was up till 3, got little sleep, and was up at 10 and was down to brunch about 10:30.  Hung out until around 1 talking with Gina, Eva, and a bunch of the folks I had met the night before and some that morning.  Once I got home I read the paper, and then went and rented some movies and watched 2 of them.

I went to bed a little earlier than normal and set the alarm for 8.  I stayed in bed till 9 anyway though because I wanted to.  And yes, that is late for me.